Apple relaxes restrictions on iOS app code, iAd analytics

Apple has made a number of sweeping changes to its iOS developer program. …

Recent revisions to the iOS developer agreements caused considerable controversy by restricting which programming languages could be used to develop iOS apps. Those changes also restricted what kind of analytics data could be collected by developers and advertisers. Now, however, Apple has backed off on its position: it will relax these rules in order to give developers more flexibility. Additionally, Apple will now actually publish a list of app review guidelines for developers—the first time the company has done so since the App Store launched more than two years ago.

The controversy ignited when Apple released the first betas of iOS 4 to developers. Those betas came with revisions to the iOS Developer Agreement, which governs what developers are allowed to do when creating iPhone and iPad apps. In particular, section 3.3.1 restricted the development languages to Objective-C, C, or C++. This would have locked out a number of third-party development platforms, which allowed developers to use JavaScript, C#, and even Flash to develop native iOS apps.

Section 3.3.2 limited the use of scripting languages to aid development or to run in the app itself. One particularly popular use of scripting was the use of Lua to help control game logic. Apple later relaxed this particular rule to allow developers to request exceptions, perhaps because it discovered that some of the most popular games on the platform would be negatively affected by the rule. This early change made developers cautiously optimistic that Apple was willing to compromise for the benefit of developers and the platform.

Finally, Section 3.3.9 of the developer agreement strictly limited which analytic information developers and third-party advertising networks could collect. Developers often collect analytic information to help understand how users are interacting with an app, in order to improve it in future iterations. Advertisers use analytics to improve how and what ads are delivered and to provide advertisers with necessary information about an ad's effectiveness. In particular, the analytics restrictions provide iAd an advantage over some larger mobile ad networks, such as the Google-owned AdMob.

Apple said Thursday morning that feedback from developers led to relaxing restrictions from these sections of the developer agreement, though it's hard to believe that an FTC investigation into the restrictions wasn't a factor as well. Whatever the cause, developers should have much more freedom in deciding how best to build their apps.

"In particular, we are relaxing all restrictions on the development tools used to create iOS apps, as long as the resulting apps do not download any code," Apple said in a statement released to the press. "This should give developers the flexibility they want, while preserving the security we need."

These changes should allow developers to use whatever development environments or languages suit them, as long as the resulting code doesn't use unapproved or private APIs and can be compiled into native iOS code. Even the iPhone development tools included in Flash CS5 should be able to be used to create iOS apps without restriction. Developers should also be able to continue to collect analytic data assuming that data does not compromise a user's privacy.

Apple did not respond to our questions about any potential changes for third-party advertisers by publication time, though. Presumably, mobile ad firms owned by competing platforms will still face some restrictions.

In another big change for developers—one they have been asking for for over two years now—Apple will publish official guidelines used to review App Store submissions. With these guidelines, developers will be able to evaluate before and during development if their app stands a chance of being approved for sale. Previously, Apple only used internal guidelines, and developers were often frustrated to have apps rejected by unwritten rules they weren't aware of until after the fact. "We hope it will make us more transparent," Apple said.

Given the explosive success of the App Store, it's in Apple's best interest to make developers' lives a little easier. Despite how long it took Apple to make these changes, hopefully they will put many developers' concerns to rest.

Here's a question that someone can hopefully answer for me then. I have an app that I need to start working on and was going to initially start with an Android version, so I could put off purchasing a Mac for development until another Macbook refresh next year, but with the updated rules, what tools could I use to develop it for Android and then port it directly, or far more easily, to iOS?

Here's a question that someone can hopefully answer for me then. I have an app that I need to start working on and was going to initially start with an Android version, so I could put off purchasing a Mac for development until another Macbook refresh next year, but with the updated rules, what tools could I use to develop it for Android and then port it directly, or far more easily, to iOS?

It was bound to happen. The only thing that surprised me was that it happened so quickly. I was expecting another year or two before 3.3.1 was ditched.

I read one commentary that suggested this was a surprising turnaround given Jobs' screed on Flash, which is laughable because Flash still won't run on iOS. This just allows Flash CS5's iOS converter.

The most important parts are the changes to App Store submission and review. Transparency and a set review board are very good things.

Just long enough to make sure that any project like Adobe's CS5 died. They still get to be anti-competitive, but not they get to claim that they have changed their ways. "Really, Mr. Congress. We didn't know it would be such an issue. We promise to never do it again."

Was there really anything new revealed by them "opening up" the review guidelines? From the quick reads I've seen from it, there wasn't anything that people didn't know or already guess. I mean there's still a lot of vagueness and ambiguity in what it says that leave Apple open to allow some apps and crush others.

"Given the explosive success of Android, it's in Apple's best interest to make developers' lives a little easier"

T,ftfy.

Shudder wrote:

"It was bound to happen. The only thing that surprised me was that it happened so quickly. I was expecting another year or two before 3.3.1 was ditched."

Well, Android has been picking up steam, more than people anticipated. This is yet another example of Android helping out iOS users (and developers) whether they want to believe it or not.

I think you both overstate the case for Android. Sure, Android marketshare is growing explosively, but what does that actually mean for Apple? It's still selling every iOS device it can build, pretty much, and it's still making a lot more profit than any of the various Android handset manufacturers:

See all the Android handset manufacturers in the middle? The explosive marketshare gains of Android have not translated into either marketshare or profitshare gains for Android handset manufacturers. I think the FTC investigation (triggered by an Adobe complaint) is a far more likely precipitating event.

[Edit: quotes from bedward and Shudder were too close together.][Edit2: I was justly (but gently ) upbraided for failing to reference the source for the graph above. It's a fantastic blog, and anyone interested in the mobile market should be reading it, even if you disagree with its conclusions!]

1) Among other things, this is an acid test for trolls. If all this makes you hate Apple even more, you're a troll.2) So,... this means you could write iOS apps on a PC, in C# with Visual Studio (given the right software tools and libraries), right?

Personally, the only way I'd develop for iOS at this point is if someone held a gun to my head. Apple has very clearly demonstrated that basing your business on their continued good will towards you is a really, really stupid idea.

Yes, they've backed off on these two things; the problem is that they felt justified in doing it in the first place. There's really nothing to stop them from coming up with some new insanity in the future.

1) Among other things, this is an acid test for trolls. If all this makes you hate Apple even more, you're a troll.2) So,... this means you could write iOS apps on a PC, in C# with Visual Studio (given the right software tools and libraries), right?

Possibly I guess, although you may still need a mac for the key signing stuff for distribution. Unity is in C#, so it is possible to compile it into something that runs on the iPhone.

1) Among other things, this is an acid test for trolls. If all this makes you hate Apple even more, you're a troll.2) So,... this means you could write iOS apps on a PC, in C# with Visual Studio (given the right software tools and libraries), right?

Pretty much. Apple pulled a shitty move and then was pressured into taking a step back. That sounds like a win for developers and users to me. I could care less that some corporation made a policy to help make them money. It's what they do. I'm just glad that legal and market pressures moved them toward a policy that is more pro-user and pro-dev. Apple's motivations are beside the point.

See all the Android handset manufacturers in the middle? The explosive marketshare gains of Android have not translated into either marketshare or profitshare gains for Android handset manufacturers. I think the FTC investigation (triggered by an Adobe complaint) is a far more likely precipitating event.

[Edit: quotes from bedward and Shudder were too close together.]

Three year averages are very useful for products that have only been widely available for 1.5-2 years.

"Given the explosive success of Android, it's in Apple's best interest to make developers' lives a little easier"

T,ftfy.

Shudder wrote:

"It was bound to happen. The only thing that surprised me was that it happened so quickly. I was expecting another year or two before 3.3.1 was ditched."

Well, Android has been picking up steam, more than people anticipated. This is yet another example of Android helping out iOS users (and developers) whether they want to believe it or not.

I think you both overstate the case for Android. Sure, Android marketshare is growing explosively, but what does that actually mean for Apple? It's still selling every iOS device it can build, pretty much, and it's still making a lot more profit than any of the various Android handset manufacturers:

See all the Android handset manufacturers in the middle? The explosive marketshare gains of Android have not translated into either marketshare or profitshare gains for Android handset manufacturers. I think the FTC investigation (triggered by an Adobe complaint) is a far more likely precipitating event.

[Edit: quotes from bedward and Shudder were too close together.]

Even though one individual phone manufacturer for android phones is not half what Apple is android as a whole is close.

Just long enough to make sure that any project like Adobe's CS5 died. They still get to be anti-competitive, but not they get to claim that they have changed their ways.

Nothing's stopping Adobe from reinstating the Flash->iOS converter in a CS5 update. Unfortunately.

Adobe never removed Flash CS5's iPhone packager. They just stopped any more development on it but left it in the tool. I know some iOS developers who still use it for initial prototyping, as it's still a lot quicker using the Flash IDE that starting from scratch with Objective-C. So since it was useful to some people and would actually require more work for Adobe to remove it, Flash CS5 shipped with the iPhone packager.

Was there really anything new revealed by them "opening up" the review guidelines? From the quick reads I've seen from it, there wasn't anything that people didn't know or already guess. I mean there's still a lot of vagueness and ambiguity in what it says that leave Apple open to allow some apps and crush others.

Just long enough to make sure that any project like Adobe's CS5 died. They still get to be anti-competitive, but not they get to claim that they have changed their ways.

Nothing's stopping Adobe from reinstating the Flash->iOS converter in a CS5 update. Unfortunately.

Adobe never removed Flash CS5's iPhone packager. They just stopped any more development on it but left it in the tool. I know some iOS developers who still use it for initial prototyping, as it's still a lot quicker using the Flash IDE that starting from scratch with Objective-C. So since it was useful to some people and would actually require more work for Adobe to remove it, Flash CS5 shipped with the iPhone packager.

Ah but have you forgotten that if you don’t use code it atrophies away like inert muscle mass?

Oh wait no, that’s not true at all. All Adobe needs to do is copy+paste all their work back to get the project rolling again.

But...at the same time, Apple has handled this whole thing badly. It's good news now though and lets hope they have learned from their mistakes. I guess they aren't used to being the big boys in certain markets and are still growing up. One thing for certain, they wont go back on this anytime soon :-)

As for Android, lets hope they keep bringing out better and better OS's and continue to treat their developers with respect. I think Google can learn a lot from Apple too by the way, as Apple is learning from others (including Android). I think Apple has already taught them a lot (see Android back in November, 2007 and you'll know what I mean)... Competition from all sides is good!!! I hope WebOS comes back too, I like the look of 2.0

While I agree that the FTC investigation probably is the biggest impetus for change, the profit for Apple has to be larger just based on the fact there is no competition for iOS devices, so they can charge whatever they want for the hardware. Android phone manufacturers have to be a little more price conscious than Apple does, since there is a lot more competition in the Android market.

Apple prices have come down since the rise of Android, but their margins can still afford to be healthy. They have a great device and a devoted base.

Using three year numbers probably skews the results a bit too. Decent Android handsets (IMO) have only been on the market for a little over a year now. It'll be interesting to see how the market looks in another three years.

I hope both companies do well. Competition is good for my bottom line.

Opening up the App market would resolve my number two complaint about the iPhone (if these actions actually result in a more open and friendly app development environment). If they get the device on multiple carriers, I will give it serious consideration next time my contract is up with Verizon. I wouldn't wish the AT&T network on my worst enemy where I live.

oluseyi wrote:

bedward wrote:

"Given the explosive success of Android, it's in Apple's best interest to make developers' lives a little easier"

T,ftfy.

Shudder wrote:

"It was bound to happen. The only thing that surprised me was that it happened so quickly. I was expecting another year or two before 3.3.1 was ditched."

Well, Android has been picking up steam, more than people anticipated. This is yet another example of Android helping out iOS users (and developers) whether they want to believe it or not.

I think you both overstate the case for Android. Sure, Android marketshare is growing explosively, but what does that actually mean for Apple? It's still selling every iOS device it can build, pretty much, and it's still making a lot more profit than any of the various Android handset manufacturers:

See all the Android handset manufacturers in the middle? The explosive marketshare gains of Android have not translated into either marketshare or profitshare gains for Android handset manufacturers. I think the FTC investigation (triggered by an Adobe complaint) is a far more likely precipitating event.

... which differs in no substantial way from every EULA's "we can update this whenever we want and we don't have to notify you" clause. When one party can write a contract with no input from the other party that's what you get, 99 times in 100.

I don't think the rule was ever going to be enforceable anyway, or ever was actually enforced. It smacks of something written by corporate bean counters who don't understand the realities of programming. It was dreamed up as FUD against Flash and once it had cooled Adobe's push to bring Flash to iOS it wasn't necessary anymore. In the meantime, programming continued uninterrupted by all but the most rabid platform purists.

These changes aren't surprising. Apple have always listened to developers, it's just that in the past, it's felt like Apple has taken time to take note (or prioritise highly enough) certain developer feedback. Apple barely even acknowledge Android but I'm sure they must be eyeing the platform, as any competitor would, and listening to their real asset (developers) and decided the benefits or lockdown don't outweigh the risk of alienating developers and driving them to the competition.

Three year averages are very useful for products that have only been widely available for 1.5-2 years.

Oh wait, no they aren't.

The graph isn't actually about Android, you know, but about various handset manufacturers. Apple is the newest entrant among them, at precisely 3 years, and has shot to the peak profit position. I know you missed my point entirely, so I'll just try again: this is about the physical handset manufacturers.

blither wrote:

Even though one individual phone manufacturer for android phones is not half what Apple is android as a whole is close.

I don't know anyone who doesn't expect Android marketshare to completely eclipse iOS by next year, but what does that mean for any of the parties involved? In the PC space dozens of vendors license Windows, which makes it harder for them to differentiate and thus charge a premium, leading to razor-thin margins (which, in the case of Dell, we recently discovered maybe don't even exist. This in contrast to Apple, whose hardware-software synergies allows them to charge (overcharge?) premium prices and maintain healthy margins - allegedly 40% of profits on 10% of marketshare in the US.

In the mobile space we're seeing a similar picture: HTC, Samsung, LG and Motorola all license Android now, making it harder for them to differentiate, leading to downward pressure on average selling price, greater promotional concessions ("buy one droid, get one free!") and slimmer margins. Contrast with RIM, Apple again and Nokia (despite Symbian being open source, it's still controlled by Nokia, plus they have excellent distribution outside of the carriers, just as Apple has with its stores).

And then throw in the recent development of the Verizon Fascinate (Samsung Galaxy S), which removes Google applications from the phone in favor of Bing, meaning the advertising-based revenue Google hopes to capture from Android proliferation is not a given. So what does Android growth mean for any of the invested parties, in terms of revenues and profits?

thebitdnd wrote:

While I agree that the FTC investigation probably is the biggest impetus for change, the profit for Apple has to be larger just based on the fact there is no competition for iOS devices, so they can charge whatever they want for the hardware. Android phone manufacturers have to be a little more price conscious than Apple does, since there is a lot more competition in the Android market.

Apple prices have come down since the rise of Android, but their margins can still afford to be healthy. They have a great device and a devoted base.

Using three year numbers probably skews the results a bit too. Decent Android handsets (IMO) have only been on the market for a little over a year now. It'll be interesting to see how the market looks in another three years.

I hope both companies do well. Competition is good for my bottom line.

Opening up the App market would resolve my number two complaint about the iPhone (if these actions actually result in a more open and friendly app development environment). If they get the device on multiple carriers, I will give it serious consideration next time my contract is up with Verizon. I wouldn't wish the AT&T network on my worst enemy where I live.

Three year averages are very useful for products that have only been widely available for 1.5-2 years.

Oh wait, no they aren't.

The graph isn't actually about Android, you know, but about various handset manufacturers. Apple is the newest entrant among them, at precisely 3 years, and has shot to the peak profit position. I know you missed my point entirely, so I'll just try again: this is about the physical handset manufacturers.

blither wrote:

Even though one individual phone manufacturer for android phones is not half what Apple is android as a whole is close.

I don't know anyone who doesn't expect Android marketshare to completely eclipse iOS by next year, but what does that mean for any of the parties involved? In the PC space dozens of vendors license Windows, which makes it harder for them to differentiate and thus charge a premium, leading to razor-thin margins (which, in the case of Dell, we recently discovered maybe don't even exist. This in contrast to Apple, whose hardware-software synergies allows them to charge (overcharge?) premium prices and maintain healthy margins - allegedly 40% of profits on 10% of marketshare in the US.

In the mobile space we're seeing a similar picture: HTC, Samsung, LG and Motorola all license Android now, making it harder for them to differentiate, leading to downward pressure on average selling price, greater promotional concessions ("buy one droid, get one free!") and slimmer margins. Contrast with RIM, Apple again and Nokia (despite Symbian being open source, it's still controlled by Nokia, plus they have excellent distribution outside of the carriers, just as Apple has with its stores).

And then throw in the recent development of the Verizon Fascinate (Samsung Galaxy S), which removes Google applications from the phone in favor of Bing, meaning the advertising-based revenue Google hopes to capture from Android proliferation is not a given. So what does Android growth mean for any of the invested parties, in terms of revenues and profits?

And you miss my point entirely. You're using data picked from a time period not to see what it says, but to say what you want to see. Were you to grab 3 month, 6 month, or 9 month averages, the data wouldn't support your conclusion. Apple's dominance is heavily weighted in 2008-mid 2009. While RIM's position in the market hasn't changed substantially, WinMo 6.5 was the primary driver for the HTC type companies during that period. Today WinMo 6.5 isn't even in the conversation and there's a heavy focus on Android and Windows Phone 7. The market is a completely different place, and behavior from 2007-mid 2009 doesn't bear any resemblence to the market in 2010. The only reason one would want to use that data to support their conclusions is if that conclusion isn't supported by any other data sets.

Put simply, it's like projecting web startups in 2000 based on 1999 data.

The folks at Adobe must be throwing a victory party now that Apple had to wave the all mighty flag of surrender on third party languages. Between the Feds and the rise of Android, it was a no win situation. All Apple has to do is put a Flash download in the App Store. Then it comes down to choice. People either download it or not.

However, it's nice to see that Android's rise has finally humbled Apple into doing the right thing. I'm just glad the Apple fanboys got it wrong. Apple cannot do what it wants without consequences. Android kicking Apple to 4th place globally & soon RIM's Blackberry, the market has spoken loudly. Apple must be more flexible, cannot dictate to the consumer market, & cannot cut off competitors. Besides driving plenty of folks to Android & other platforms, it lead to great rise in competition including the new Windows Phone 7.

Frankly, I think Apple needed to be brought down a notch, if just to get them back to "thinking realistically".

Three year averages are very useful for products that have only been widely available for 1.5-2 years.

Oh wait, no they aren't.

The graph isn't actually about Android, you know, but about various handset manufacturers. Apple is the newest entrant among them, at precisely 3 years, and has shot to the peak profit position. I know you missed my point entirely, so I'll just try again: this is about the physical handset manufacturers.

blither wrote:

Even though one individual phone manufacturer for android phones is not half what Apple is android as a whole is close.

I don't know anyone who doesn't expect Android marketshare to completely eclipse iOS by next year, but what does that mean for any of the parties involved? In the PC space dozens of vendors license Windows, which makes it harder for them to differentiate and thus charge a premium, leading to razor-thin margins (which, in the case of Dell, we recently discovered maybe don't even exist. This in contrast to Apple, whose hardware-software synergies allows them to charge (overcharge?) premium prices and maintain healthy margins - allegedly 40% of profits on 10% of marketshare in the US.

In the mobile space we're seeing a similar picture: HTC, Samsung, LG and Motorola all license Android now, making it harder for them to differentiate, leading to downward pressure on average selling price, greater promotional concessions ("buy one droid, get one free!") and slimmer margins. Contrast with RIM, Apple again and Nokia (despite Symbian being open source, it's still controlled by Nokia, plus they have excellent distribution outside of the carriers, just as Apple has with its stores).

And then throw in the recent development of the Verizon Fascinate (Samsung Galaxy S), which removes Google applications from the phone in favor of Bing, meaning the advertising-based revenue Google hopes to capture from Android proliferation is not a given. So what does Android growth mean for any of the invested parties, in terms of revenues and profits?

thebitdnd wrote:

While I agree that the FTC investigation probably is the biggest impetus for change, the profit for Apple has to be larger just based on the fact there is no competition for iOS devices, so they can charge whatever they want for the hardware. Android phone manufacturers have to be a little more price conscious than Apple does, since there is a lot more competition in the Android market.

Apple prices have come down since the rise of Android, but their margins can still afford to be healthy. They have a great device and a devoted base.

Using three year numbers probably skews the results a bit too. Decent Android handsets (IMO) have only been on the market for a little over a year now. It'll be interesting to see how the market looks in another three years.

I hope both companies do well. Competition is good for my bottom line.

Opening up the App market would resolve my number two complaint about the iPhone (if these actions actually result in a more open and friendly app development environment). If they get the device on multiple carriers, I will give it serious consideration next time my contract is up with Verizon. I wouldn't wish the AT&T network on my worst enemy where I live.

Agreed on all points.

++ Since Google doesn't make money on Android, they get a new market, but its not necessarily worthwhile for handset manufacturers to produce the phones. And since they have a smaller market share individually, its hard to see where there growth potential comes in. Say RIM disappears, WM7 fails completely and MS doesn't introduce a replacement, and HP decides WebOS was a mistake and drops it, and Nokia switches to Android. That leaves Samsung, LG, HTC, Nokia, Sony-Ericson and Motorola all selling Android phones. Say Apple increases marketshare by 50% (by handset count) to 15%. The others all split the market evenly, each getting ~19% themselves. The others still have to fight to differentiate, still have to compete on price (because in the end, its about the platform, and not the handset maker) and their profit margins will be significantly lower. Heck, assume Nokia, HTC and Motorola all bail, leaving the other three manufacturers with 28% of the market each. We know Apple's margins are healthy around 40%, but do you think the others will be able to maintain 20% margins? That would be optimistic...and that would get them nothing but even par on profit. Not sure its worth pedaling twice as fast to get to the same place. Yet Android would have 85% of the market. Granted- developers might be happier, but it will be hard for the manufacturers to compete. Not saying it isn't profitable, but it seems like as long as Apple doesn't go by the wayside, they are in a pretty good position.

I'd be willing to bet the restrictions will become even looser if Windows Phone 7 gains any real market share. Or if HP actually gets Palm going again.

What's interesting about the Palm thing is that their PDK has made it trivial to port apps from iOS over to WebOS. Supposedly the porting process takes just days to a week for most developers. I could see why Apple wanted to make the process harder but it was a shortsighted move that would've hurt their platform in my opinion even though Palm's marketshare is negligible.

As an early adopter of the original iPhone who later moved on. I think it's funny that Apple gets so much credit for inventing the app store. As with this recent move, it was just a compromise. Apple didn't even want to run native code on the iPhone and it was really the iPhone users and potential developers that invented the app store by endlessly demanding it.